Transcript of "Body size and metabolism"

1.
HILGARDIA
A JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
PUBLISHED BY THE
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
VOL. 6 JANUARY, 1932
BODY SIZE A~D NIETABOLISM
;IAX KLEIBER'
INTRODUCTION
No. 11
The statement that the basal metabolism of animals differing in
size is nearly proportional to their respective body surfaces, is called
the surface law.
Bene,lict has shown that this law is already over ninety years old,
Hohiquet and Tillaye having formulated it quite dearly in 1839. The
history of the surface law is given in the paper of Harris and Benedict
(H1l9). We may here only briefly mention the different ways in which
it has been found. The early writers derived the law from theoretical
considerations on a rather small experimental basis, as did Bergmann,
who ill 1847 had already written a book on the subject. Respiration
trials were carried out by Regnault. and Reiset, and Rameaux based the
surface law on measurements of the amount of air respired per minute
by two thousand human beings of different sizes. Rubner (1883)
(lemonstrated the Jaw in accurate respiration trials on dogs and Richet
rediscovered it empirically on rabbits. The latter writes (p. 223):
"e'est apres coup seulement que je me suis avise que la donnee swjace
etait plus interessante que la donnee pm·ds."
Although Armsby, Fries, and Braman (1918, p. 55) found the surface
law confirmed to a rather striking degree, this law is not at all so clear
today as it appeared to its early discoverers. Carman and Mitchell
(l02G, p. 380) state the situation very well: ,.In spite of the theoretical
weakness of the surface law, the computation of basal metabolism to
the unit of the body surface seems at present the most satisfactory
mdhod available of equalizing experimental results for differences in
Ihe size of experimental animals."
1 .ssociate in Animal Husbandry in the Experiment Station.

2.
.116 Hilgarilia, [Vol. 6, NO.l1
This is probably the point of view of most physiologists: they feel
the necessity of having a method which allows the relluction of the
nwtabolism of animals different ill si~e to a common basis to make the
results comparable for studies of other influences on the metabolism.
The surface law offers such a comlIlon basis, but the theoretical weakness
of this law id recognized.
It is obvious that the scientist should strive to overcome any theoreti_
cal weakness; that purpose is one of the essential stimuli for research.
But, also, if the law between body size and metabolism were only con-
sidered as a means for equalizing results and estimating food require.
ments, it would still be important to get rid of the theoretical weakness
of the method, because this weakness lIlay mean a wrong application
also.
Harris and Benedict (En9) bDsed their eritique of the surface law
upon thc classical investigation of the Carnegie Nutrition Laboratory
on human metabolism. They separated the interspecific point of view
from the intraspecific and came to the conclusion that within the human
speeies there is no evidence of that law; DuBois (1927, p. 202) on the
contrary, on the basis of the same experiments, finds the law confirmed.
The situation is therefore that the critique of the surface law based
on material within the human species has not given definite results on
the question of the validity of that law. Benedict himself approves of
the application of the surface bw for comparisons between species.
Benedict and Ritzman (1927, p. 153) write: "The method of comparison
is, however, justified on the ba:,;is of usage, provided a false significance
is not attached to it and that a causal relation between body surface
and heat production is not insisted upon."
In this paper the surface law, its theory and its application, is dis-
cussed mainly from the interspecific point of view. It may be claimed
as a wurking hypothesis that there is a general influence of body size
on the met.abolism, an influence upon which the other influences on
metabolism are superimposed. In order to study the general influence
of size, animals as different in size as possible should be chosen so that
this in fluc'nce of size may predominate over the other influences.
EMPIRICAL RESULTS OF RECENT WORK ON METABOLISM
The surface law is illustrated by Voit's table (Voit, 1901, p. 120)
which has received wide publication (Krogh, 1916, p. 142; Lusk, 1928,
p. 123). From this table it follows that the ba~iHl metabolism of all
liuimals is close to 1,000 Cals. pel' 2,1 hours per square meter of body
surface. Recent determinations, however, show considerable deviation

4.
31~ I v'u!' 6, Xo. 11
from this statement. The writer himself has found with an old rabbit
a basal metabolism as Imv as ·140 Cals. per 24 haUl'S per square meter
of body surface. Results of extensive work on basal metabolism which
has heen done in recrmt years in America are summarized in table 1.
The main ohjecti'lIl to using a table such as this is that basal metabo-
lism is not so well defined a tf'rm as might be desirable. As early as
1888, Hoesslin stated that there was no minimum metabolism of definite
magnitude.
By ohservinl!; certain rules, i.e., comparing animab under the same
conditions, one lIlay, 110W8'er, obtain comparable results. The require-
ments to he observed arc summarized hy DuBois (192i).
It is difficult to tf'll exactly what the S:lIllf~ conditions are for different
animals: 24 hours after thp last food, is 1'01' examplr, physiologically
not the same for the steer flS for the hen or the rat, also a certain environ-
mental temperature may haw a vcry different effect on a cow than on
a pIgeon.
Although it cannot hf' claimed that the results in table 1 have been
obtained under the same conditions, there is nevertheless reason to
believe that the animals compared in thi::; table have all been studied in
an environmental temperature above the so-tailed critical temperature,
so that the metabolism is practically independent of variations in
temperature. It must be admittpd, however, that the quest.ion of the
critical temperature i::; not entirely settled. The data in tahiC' 1 were
obtained on mature individuals so that the influence of uj:!;e should not
he important. This statement may imlced still be opr>n to somp criticism.
For example, it follows from a curve ~iVl~n by Benedict and Macleod
(Hl29, p. 381), showing the influence of age on the hertt production of
female albino rats, that the rate of nwtabolism per square meter of
body surface increases in thes(' animals with inereasinp; age, namely
from 050 Cals. for rat::; of 8 months to 900 Cals. for rats which arr
24 months ohU These data were obtained at an environmental tem-
perature of 28.9° C. There is further reason to assume that in all
cases summarized in table 1 the after-effect of food 1:-; eXI·IUlled or at
least does not I'eriously affect the re::;ult.
Differences in the degree of motility may have un influence on the
figures of table 1 and may be partly responsible for the pspecially high
rates of metabolism in ruminants compared with the other animals.
The metabolism of the rats, for example, is taken only from the periods
in which the rats were quiet; periods of activity were exrluded. The
influence of differences in motility cannot, however, change the general
'These authors calculated the surfacE' area at'col'uing to the :lech formula:
S=9.1W2!3 (p. 361).
L
l

5.
llTdber: BOlly Size lind Mdabolism, 319
result; for Benedict and Ritzman (1927, p, 229) state that rarelY,more
than 1;) per cent difference in metabolism was found for the nU1Xlmum
diffcl'l'!H'e in activity of their steers. The rebtivply low value of the
hen lI]ay he in connection with the fact that the determinations had
hccn made in darkness.
A rough comparison of the column giving Calories per unit of body
surface with the column giving Calories per unit of W on the one hand
and 1ht, column giving Calories per animal on the other may be taken
as a confirmation of the opinion of Lusk and of Armsby: By calculating
the mle of metabolism to the unit of body surface, one obtains much
closer results than by calculating it to either the unit of body weight
or to thu whole animal as a unit.
The coofficient of variability in the calculation of the metaholism
to tbe unit of hody smfaee is ±34 per cent. Although this coefficient
is not even half of that resulting from the calcIllation to the unit of
bodY Y(~ight, it seems at first that with suth a variability one must deny
the vaJi(lity of the surface law as Benedict (1915, p. 27i) has done.
A high coefficient of variability as such, however, is not sufficient
reason to refute a suggested law. If the same deviations from the mean
as 1h,;:"C of the Calories per square meter in tahle 1 Wl'l'e Sf) clistrihuted
among tlw different groups that the averages of six groups of the larger
animals as well as the averages of six groups of the smaller animals would
differ less than, say, 14 per cent (~~) from the total average there
vfj
wOIlI,1 be reason to expect that with a Inl'1erial of six hundred instead of
six group,s on each :"ide the diffcrenee of the means of eaeh half from
the total avcruge might be within ± 1.4 per cent and that with increas-
ing Humher of groups the avprage me1'1bolism per square meter of large
animals might be found more and more nearly the same as the corre-
sponding average of small animals. If the deviations were so distributed
thcre would he reason to expect that with increasing number of groups
the surface law (the theory that the heat production per square meter of
body surface is the same for large and small animals) could be proved
with increasing accmacy and then the title of "law" would be justified
in spite of the coefficient of variahility of ±34 per cent.
:Ylore serious for the surface law than the high coefficient of varia-
hility is the fact that the metabolism per square meter in table 1 shows
a pronounced tendency to be increased with increasing size of the animal.
1f the results arc grouped in two halves (omitting the middle group 7)
six representing the larger and six the smaller animals the average heat
production per square meter of the large animals is 512 Cals. or 56

6.
32U HiTr/ardia ryol. 6, No. 11
pel' ccnt of the total average higher than the average for the small
anirnuJ,~. In order to obtain a 1lll':lSUre for the tendency of the metabo.
lism to be' incl'eLl~ed with increasing hody size the r1iffercnr'c hetween the
balf aV('rages in Calories has heen divid(~d by the cOITesponding difference
ill weight as shown in the following calculation:
--_'~"==~~''=;-~''~-=-~~==I===='==~=~--=='=--=='='~'=='
.,,~~rnw~ , I'
hl'Rl prc,dUdion
Group ~o. peT :"{l'j[lrf~ lll~ter J)ifft>fl·tCC Avt:f:,ge ,'ight I Difff'renc£'
'IT "-:a IV I "-w
------------ -i----Z'-;;;:,~-~-i-----~l:·--~-i---}~tl ---I!-'- -k-'g--
1-C ,1,L,2 " ] 0 ! ~1;2.) 250.1
8-1J I 070 ! ,) - ,: 2.4 i
Thus ~M = [)]2 = un Cals. per sq. meter p('J' kg.
Mv 2iiO.l
The basal meiaholi:-lll per :-quare mrter increases 1.07 Cals. per
kilogmm incre:l:-e ill hudy ,wight. As the average basal heat production
is 9H Cab. per square mete'r, the increasp per kilogram increase in
body wpight i" 0.215 pel' cent of the llleall. This is the coefficient of
tendency T in table 1.
The mefubulifilll of the thirteen groups of animals has also been
calculated to the unit of differellt powers uf the hody wpight OF). The
distribution of the dt'viations from the mean is best (T is minimum)
if the metaholism is calculated to the 0.74 power of the body weight.
In this cafiP the coeffieient of variahility is ± 7.6 per cent.
B,I' ('xtluding the ruminants from the ealculation the d('viation may
be dccreased. In tbis case the codficient of variability is ± 16.0 per
cent if the metabolism is calculated per square meter of body surface
[lnd as low as ±5.6 pel' cent if the 0.73 power of the hody weight is
I'hOSCll as unit, If the different types of allim[l]s grouped together and
the hrge r:lllge in body size are consiJered, it is smpriBing that [lny
formula tan be found whirh gives such a relativPly low cupfficient of
variability.
A gpner:tl forlllubtion of thp law expn'ssing the relatiun between
bedy size and metabulism may 1)(' found if the logarithm of the metabo-
lism is plotted against the lugarithm of the body weight; this hus been
done in figme 1. A stmight lille results, indicating that the logarithm
of the baslIl metallohsm is prufJurtiona7 to the logarithm of the body 'Weight.
By differentiatioll of this function one finds that a small increase
in metabolism pt'r unit of the corre~ponding inrrf':L~e in body weight
i,; pl'Uportionnl to the metaboliO'1Il per unit of body weight:
dJl }"M
rlW Tv

7.
Jnll.,lD33j Kki1Jer: BOIly Sizc and .lIe/abo/ism ;,21
LOG. OF METABOLISM/LOG. OF BODYWEIGHT
4-.•
.-:59
8 9°" :7
" "l' I
.; ,
6 ., ,
5 ,, , , ,
, , ,
"
,
3
/04<
, ,
~
,
I
3. : I I I ,
,.... 1 I
....
° '
, 1 I
Q1 9'.. ' I , ,
... I
..0 I
Ii 3
, I
U
, I
...... ~ , I
, I
I I
I
, ,
~ 2.0
en j
j 8
7
(, I I •
: cf'? I I :1 I
3 9-(: ~ ~ I : :
~ ::: ~ Of- 'b ~~~ ~: ~
"i j~it ~ $; ~3f ~! V1
!,." ~ J f S 6 7 S 9 0., ~ 3 Ij. S 6 7 8 9 1.0 I 1. 3 4 r 6 7 8' 0' :a. 3 ~ 5 6 7 8 93.0
L09 W(l<'~lo9rQ.ll'Is)
It abo may be expressed that tho relative rate of increaso of metabo-
lism is pruportional to the rplativp rate of inol'ew'p in horly wc·ight:
~lJf = K~~
M TV
It follows from the linear function of the logarithms of metaholism
and body weight that the metabolism per unit of a certain power of the
body wci/l:ht is constant. This, indeed. is 110 other l'('slllt than was
obtained by trying diffen·nt calculations in ta10le 1 and finding that the
%power of the body weight was the best-fitting unit.
It must be admitted that the Il:ttprial, though without Ioubt
superior to that llsed heretofore as a basis for the surface law, is not yet
homo/l:enous and not udeqllate enough to decide conclusively tl) which
poV~r of the body weight (lwtwecn the % and the ~ti) the gC'lH'ral influence
of hody size 011 th~ metabolism is most clo:-;ely related. Two cone)usions
with re/l:ard to the sllrface law from the inter:.:peeific point of vic~w lnflY,
however, be clrawn:
1. The surface law is ron./inned insofar as on(~ gets eloser results hy
ealclllatin~ the ba,;al metaholism to the unit of hody surfaee than hy
ealeulating it to the unit of hody weight.
2. The surfaee law if' refutcd insofar as the ealrulntion of the metaho-
lism to the unit of a power fnnction of the body weight gives as rlose
results as the caknlation to the Ilnit of body snrf:l('c, 01' even closer.

8.
:,22 HiTfJ(l1"llill rVo1. 6, No. 11
THE THEOHIES OF THE RELATlOX BETVEEX BODY tllZE
AXD ~IET.BOLI8.:vI
The question is lOW whether, on the basis of the material in table 1,
the surface law should bc abandollcd and a weight-power law for the
Ilwtabolism pcstulated, or whether there is r{'ason to assullle that
the empiricrtl result from table 1 is insignificant compared with the
th(,orctical evidrmce of til(' surface law. To this end the amount of
evidence for the statement that th(' nwtabolism is proportional t:J the
hod~' surf:1l'e should be studied.
FoUl' diff('J'ent theOl'ie:-i which haw lJPen put forward to explain the
surface Inw on phYi"iical 01' chemical base" lIlay be distiugllished, and
theu a iJiologieul explanation of the relation between hody size and
metabolism formulated.
8mface Law and Tcmpuatui'e Regll/ation.--The amount of heat
requin·d to Illflintclin a constant ternp<'rflJlln, in a warm body sllrrounded
by a cooler medium is proportioual to the surfacf' of that lJOdy. This
has been. and still is llesig'uated iu physiologif'al p,lrJerS, as the application
of 1e"·ton',, ('oliling lm', although HnJTi~ amI Benedict (1010, p. 135)
have' already critieizec this terminology.
Newton's law of cooling may bC' writtC'1l :115 follows:
dn 1 ( ,
- = -- ,111 - 11 2)
rtt k
In a body with the temperature 1/1 surrounded by n medium of
thl' tt~rnpcraturl' 1/2, the loss of tempcratme (rtul per unit of time (dt)
I,mte cf coolin,g) is proportional to the difference in temperature ini:lide
and olltsi<!c!. As the animal keeps the inside tc~mpl'rature constant,
rill h'('Ollll'S 0, nnd the law leses its application. There is no ('ooling,
1mt hent flow.3 The architect (Htitte, 1925, '01. 3, p. :335), in order to
I'Still'fltc the size of a fllrnace nel'ded for a house, can calculate heat
flow from ill~ide to ollt,;ide on the basi:,; of FOllric'I"s formula (Mach,
Inl0, fl. S4):
:i It may bp lllentionerl that at Newton's time the two conceptiuns of !:I'mp"ra-
till''' ,,-'HI ](:at ('re !loJ kq,t etl'lLrly s,·paraJ,·,1 011" from tltl' ol!Jp!'. (:£ach, 1919,
p. 132).

9.
,J: ".,10:,21 Klr:ib, 1': Bod.l/ 8i:'t; (II,d Mtl117J07islIl 323
H k '<' U' ~=!~t/, L
H heat passed (calorie~)
k coefficient of thermal conductivity
o = cross-section area of thermal conductor
L = length of tlwrmfll conductor
Uj-llz = differenc(' in temperature for the length L
t = time
Tllj~ formula, originally derived for the flow of' heat within a COIl-
d1Ji'10r may, a~ the application of the arehiteet shows, he used for the
c~,klllation of the heat transmission entirdy through a comluctor.
For applieution to the problem of body IIIl'tnholism, the surface area
of :1?1 animal would bl' taken f1S the cross-section area and the thickness
of: he body covering as the length of the conductor.
The hody covering of all animal inr:ludes the hair, the air in the
intnstiees hetwcen the hair, the skin, the subr'utaneolls fat, and perhaps
[lddi1 ional tissues (Benedict an(l Ritzman, 1927, p. 113; I3enedict and
S]:II·k, 1911, p. 35).
The thermoconcuctive thickness, i.e., the thif,klJess representing a
f'tr1 ain average conductivity, of this cover is difficult to define. The
sit u: tioll may he simplified hy introducing the fl,rm 8])(c!jicinsu!atio/1
of 11w animal amI defining it as:
L
1'=-
1"
L
h
t:'pecific insulation (resistance against heat flow)
the thermoconductivc thicknes;; of the ('over
the average heat conductivity of the cover.
}{
l1t'J'c
Ot
The follOying formula can then be derived:
H nl-U~
~ - _.._--
Ot (
:'heat fluw per unit of surface per unit of time (in the follow-
~ in~ tables given ~s small calorif'R per square centimeter
:of body surface per day)
Il] - 1/ ~ = the difference in temperature inside and outsidp the
covering, given inoC
r = the specific insulation
11 means here the part of the total heat loss of the animal which
p3,-,"d';; through the skin. For an approximation, the total heat loss
l1lay be substituted for II amI the additional amount resulting from heat

10.
_. --_.-._-------_._--
TABLE 2
SPECIFIC I.'ISlJLATW" OF R.AHRTT:-;
0.200
0.121
0.061
0.210
0.198
0.074
0.156
0.079
0.28
036
0.43
[Vol. 6, No. 11
174
106
185
119
161
143
173
129
nn.7
74.4
sn.o
28.9
9.4
24.3
9.5
9.8
311.4
ID
27
37 I.---_._--------~--
I-------~-- ------------..-
Hilgardia
21
13
3
8.8 37.7
28.3 37_7
3.4 37 7
28.2 37.7
27.9 377
7.3 37.7
r I
I
Animal
, Carried out in the Swiss Institute for Anima! Nutrition, Zurich.
Old mbbit
Young rabbit
i I 'I Jl --
I Teml](,rnture. °C I '111 -H,. °C iJi r
- - - - - - 1 ,--·---I-----~---~---
'
1,- I S I' 22 I 4D .7 O. 44
13 27 53.S 0.50
4 36 72.7 O.flO
I
324
loss by other ways than the skin--espeeially the amount of heat given
off through the respiratory organs-neglected. At abnormally high
outside temperatures where the animal uses polypno(' as a means to
prevent overheating the negleeting of the heat loss through the respira-
tory system might introduee a considerable error. The expression
U I - Uz means the difference in temperature inside and outside of the
animal's covering. For an approximation, 1(2 may be taken as equal
to the temperature of the environmental air. At high outside tempera-
ture, however, the temperature of the skin may be considerably lower
than that of the surrounding ail' (b('cause of evaporation of water and
radiation). This fact, like that first mentioned. tends to decrease the
reliability of the approximation for high outside temperatures.
The data in table 2 have been derived from my own earlier experi-
ments.4
The specific insulation of the old rabbit remains fairly cOllstant,
but the young rabbit increases its insulation ngainst heat loss with
decreasing outside temperature. These results would seem to indicate
that the YOUllg animal has a wider range of physical temperature regula-
tion (regulation of blood cireulation in the skin and the condition of fur).
lTsing data from Benedict and Hitzman (1927, p. 219) the calculations
given in table 3 with regard to steers may be made:
TABLE 3
fPEClFlC INSULATION OF STEERS

11.
Klnbcl': Eody Si:'c owl }[1'f1l7Jolism 32.j
The results show that steers can adapt their specific insulation
l'orsiderabl.r to thp t'llvironlTlcntal temperature. In No.4, where the
st(~cr had Iwen first at high and then at low temperature, the regulation
of the specific insulatioll was S8 pronouncer[ that the animal had a
I'c'Cl'sed chemical regulation and producer! less heat at low than at high
euvironmental temperatul'e.
Substantially the same results may be calculated from data on sheep
111lblished recently by Hitzman and Benedict 0931, p. 2G, table 9).
TABLE 4
SPElH'Ie I:VSGL,TI01' OF SHEEP
=====
O. a25
O.I;;:!
:39 ~
~ ,.(,./
a.2
~f). 7
11.:,
:27.G
I '
IT
i I I UI T
Out.-;ide (H~) i Body I'lid I til -If~ I !
~-_._---- ------, ---,- - --:~)---i-~-.~-----!---:;;--I--~-_-
3,~ ,,9,~ I 3.l,S 1_9, 0.2,7
,-,.S :3f1 2 I :3:3,~ 1:J[ I 02,5.;
2~1.:3 ;!fI.2' 1.; ~) l.,;l' 0 1O~
i . .
I :W. r, !Of) 0, 2S0
I 27.7 1J2 0247
II : , : : : : : : . ~~:
:JO 0 1.)1 O.lfI.'
i I,.;; 172 0.040*
. ..__._. -;_:;~ ~l __L__~~U -'-_J~~ _* Two day:,; hl'fOT(> lambing
The reversed chemical temperature regulation occms in three of
four eaiiCS in these experiments with Hheep.
A bc'havior opposite to that of the one steer and the thl'l.'e Hhl'pp,
namely a strict action of the chemical temperatme regulation in Rubnf>r's
~('nse and evpn a reversed physical regulation may be calculated. from
data on fastillg pxpcriments with eight, female albino rats published
reeently by Horst, .:Ylpndel, and Bpnediet on~~o, tables 4 amI 5). The
calculation is presented in table 5.
TABLE 5
!3PEr'IFre INSUL.TICJN OF' RT";
*2:2 h,)ur~ withuut (c'/ld.
t Tht~ body tl'nl}Jl:'l':ttuf€, not found in tilt:' rapC'f, IU$ LI~l-'n :--llpplit~d from din:~I~t II1l'Il:'JUfl'nll'nti'.
: Th... surfacl' i.-; ('ulculah;d at,(~,)fdJllg to Il:'ch, 0 =0.1 n!~n.

12.
326 Hill/w·llin. [Vol. 6, No. 11
At the beginning of the fast the specific insulation of the rats at
high and low environmental temperature was essentially the same.
At the seventh day of fa:;t the rats at high temperature had even a
higher specific insulation than the rats at low outside temperature.
The difference is such that it does not seem reasonable to explain it as
within the errors of experiment or calculation, as, for example, due to
the use of a constant body temperature. Some clue for an explanation
may be found in the faet that activity was decreased during prolonged
fasting at high outside temperature but was increased with prolonged
fasting at the low outside temperature.
From earlier data of Benedict and Macleod (1929, p. 3G9, fig. 1),
results on rats which confirm those obtained on steers, sheep, and
rabbits may be obtained, as showll below:
------_._--_._-----~---------------
0.153
0.108
H
Of
10
28
___Temperat~~ 1
Outside (m) j HI -112 I
II' 1----27.5 180
0." 88
--------'
That the animal can change its insulation has 'wen clearly demon-
strated by Hoesslin (1888, p. 329). He raised two dogs from the same
litter, one at 32° C and the other at 5° C, and found from the different
amounts of body substance produced by these two dogil, considering
the amount of food consumed, that the one at 5° e had a metabolism
only 12 per cent above that of its brother. Hoesslin states that if the
heat loss had been the determining factor for the rate of metabolism
(assuming a constant specific insulation), the difference in metabolism
should have been severnl hundred per cent. The explanation was found
in the fad that at the end of the 88 days of the trial the hair of the dog
kept at 5°e weighed 129 grams, that of the other only 3G grams.
In a strict sense the surface law could be explained on the basis of
Fourier's formula for the heat flow only if the specific insulation in
small and large animals were the same. This situation cannot be ex-
pected, for it has just been shown that the insulation changes even in
the same animal according to different outside conditions. It would
not, however, be ('onect to discard the heat-loss theory entirely, as
is often done.
The possibility of chunging the specifie insulation is ftctually limited.
For example, steer C of Benedi('t and Ritzman (1927), which weighed
600 kilograms, had at an environmental temperature of 2.9° C a specific
insulation of 0.200. If, for purposes of discussion the same hent conduc-

13.
Kltlb".; lIody Size lind Jfftabo/ism 327
jjyity is :Lssunll'd for the body covering of the steer as has been found
lOJ' the rabbit fur by RuhnPT OS95. p. 380), namt'ly {) X 10-5
calories
P(I' 'iCCOlld, or .5 calories per 24 hours per square centimeter with a
1C!ll]lcr[lture gradie.nt of 10
C per eentimeter, thp thermoconductive
thickness5
of the steer cover is found to he 1 em. (According to the
definition of the specific insulation given on page :323, it follows:
1. - i·k=O.2X5=1.0.)
1U0uee of GO grams with the ::;ame heat production per unit of body
II ,dlt and the ~ame heat conductivity of the covel' would require a
i I" rmncOIHlllctive thiclo1l'sS of covering of no less than 20 cm to ket'p
it:.; hody temperature at the same lewl above the outside temperature
af' does the steer.G
The fact is that the mouse produces 20 times as
lJlud} heat per gram of hody weight as does the steer, and animals of
tLe sizf' of a mouse would not be able to live as warm-blooded animals
in lht: temperate and cold zones of the world if they had only the samE'
]';Ite of heat production per unit of bOfly weight. as a steer.
The heat-loss theory of the ::;nrface law is thus reasonable if aIle
(OJl1pares animals very different in size which are living at relatively
luw temperaturcs.
The heat-loss theory loses its application for explaining the surface
In > in animals which arp living in warm climates where they have to
U[i,:rn tt' regulating ,.;ystpms to get rid of a ::;urplus of heat. The ability
to give off heat and prevent overheating waf', howE'ver, also related to
t!i(: surface law hy Rubner in 19m (Lehmann, 1920, p. GiG). ThE'
c;,me :-;tatt~ment can be made for the overheating theory as for the hent-
In:" theory, namely, that it does not. apply to animals of similar size,
Inc is reasonable if the animals compared differ considerably in size.
Thl' sailors whom RobertYlayer had to bll'ea on board t he ship
"Java" in the Bay of Surubaya in the summer of 1842 had light red
VUIOUS blood, a fact which led that young genius to the diseovNy of
1he Inw of conservation of encrgy. The bloou was light red because
[h, ,.;ailors had decrea8pd their muscular activit.y in the hot zonE' in
, DpDncd on p. 323.
, The surface per ullit of body weight, which ill an animal is practically the
. ' . IV','
'l1m~ as the surface pt'r umt of body volume, or the speCific surface, IS w= W-1/3.
Tbr mtio of the specific mrfaces of mouse to stf'er is thus the cuhe root of the in-
, f h . . I d 'h ' i-MOX-il}] , ~. , h·(,l'.'e ratio 0 tell' rps[,pctlve )0· v WPig ts -; ~------=1O~ 10=21.6. r e sur-
" - GO
LtCt, per g;rum ,)f mOU6C is th,-rcfore 20 time, Wi largf' as the surface pl'r gram of
Plt":r. With the same heat production per gram ot body wpight, thp hpllt liow
thrullg·h 1 sq. cm of slll'face of a mouse should therdore be only 1,20 of that through
J 'q. em of surface of a stl'pr: consequently the spf'cific insulation of the mouse
-hould be 20 times as high as that of the sterr.

14.
321> rVol. G,::-lo. 11
order to prevent owrheating. Vhat would they have done with a heat
production ten times as great, which per unit of hody weight would
correspond to the metabolism of it monse'? If animals varying much in
size and living in hot regions are considered, the overheating thenry of
the surface law is thus acceptable.
For hot as well as for cole! climates, therefore, the maintenance of
a constant body temperature gives us a sound explanation for the surface
law if anima]s of considerably different size are compared; this is an
explanation only in the sense, however, that the regulation of body
t<'mpcrature is not the cause, but one of the conditions which influence
the metabolism and is therdOl'e a eriterion, among others, in the
selection of the fittest.
8U1:J'ace Law and lVutrd£l'e 8wfaccs.-Puettncr (Lehmann, lfl26, p.
577), using older ideas such as these of Ho<'sslin, has stated that thE'
surfaces of the intestinal trl1ct ancl of the lungs and, finally, the surfaces
of til(' individual cells of the animal are the important facton; for the
mte of rnetah0 li,;In. and that one may explain the ';lll'face law a~ resulting
from the rate of diffusion of the llutrients through these internal surfaces.
Pfaul1(ller (H121, p. 27:3) ,;tateii corrertly that the :,;urfac('~ of the cPlls
could be rcsponsible for the surface law only if the cell,; in an animal
llwrdy grew but did not inen·asc in number, bE'cause on]y in this case
<'ould tIw sum of the cdl surfares in an animal be proportional to its
hody surface. Pfnundler himself, however. attempts to cxplain the
surface law basing his explanation 011 Buetschli's theory of the structure
of thp protoplasm, the "Wabenstruktur" (honeyeomh ,;tructure).
Pbundler apparently believes that tlw I;um of the ~urfal'es of thoiOO
hypothetical structure,; of the living suhstfuH'e in :m animal should he
proportional to the % power of the body wl'ight. This wonld imply
that the protoplasmic elem£'nb of a man in linear dimemions iihoul(
be tpn times as large as the ('OlTcspondin/!; clements uf t he protoplasm of
a mOllS£'; or that one kilogram of protoplasm of :m ox should ('ontain
the same numher of protuplasm units as one gram of guiul'a pig plasm.
It iii doubtful wllPtllt'r allY t'f·al "a,;is ean he found for slch a logica,l
con,;eqlencp of Pfaunl lpr's thpory.
The finnlrefutation of all attempts to explain tlw surface law with
(,ell aIHI cell-structure surfaces comes as a rl'f'ult of the mOlleI'll reiiearch
on the respiration of tissue!"; :1el~ordiug to Tenoine Dnd Roehl' (lf125),
hnmolo(Jolil" ti,~sw'l" of di.tfl'1'cnt animals h(we in ritl'o the WInC intensity
of respiration.
In the same year Grafe (1925) states: "The living protopla,;ma of
the warm-bloo<lP<l animal,; aml mayhe ('yen of many ('olrl-bloorled

15.
KkilJ((: Bod!! 81:" tlnd Jli1"liOTisln :J2fl
animals, shows as far as the respiratiOll is concerned [t certain uniformity
and p;et:'! its sp:'cifieity only hy means of the influ('nce of the regulating
sY',tem of the animal."
Grafe, Heinwein, and ~inger (lg25, p. 109) founel SOlIle differenees in
till; respimtion of tissues of cliff('J'ent animals in vitro. The average
oxyg'en consumption per gram of dry IlIatter per minute is 0.2 cc for
ll10use ti~suC' and 0.119 cc for th[lt of the ox. These authors state,
hOlY('Vc'!', that thi:-; difference cannot ('xplain the fact that in vivo one
~1'~llJl of mouse body l1:'i('~ up per unit of time 33 times as mllch oxygen
as I,ne gram of ox body.
The law of bod!! size and metabolism is therefore not a l1wttrr of thc
!issues, but 11mattcl' of thc ol'(Jan'ism as a whole.
TARLE 6
BLOOD VOLL)AE A;o.;D BODY WEIGHT
5.77
4. Hl
Avemge of 10 di't,erminatinn,loi,
table 20, p. 154
.'erage of 0 det,erminatiom;,
tnbl,' J6. p. 152
Ajjirll~d
CuiOf':l pig
, , I
: Burly.. WPig-hf'l Blol)J Bluod qllantity,
Snun'e~ uf f(jrmut<lfi I gl':lTBS VU11lnH', in peT eent of
I : ( W) , 1.'1' I body weight
------ ---,---------;---'--;;---'-- -1--~1---1---4----1---5----
.------_._--,-----------------,--------------------- -------
Habbit 1
1
'1 .4.nTagl~ ui' 2'2 determinations, I! u7{)-~,:!.~O i U,U;J2 W~·J I 4.02
tuble I, 1'. I :~S
O. ISO W';" I
" o~"." o. no W" I
____,______ _ ~. ~ .. L_~ _
8111:fucc LOIc and COJllpositiun of the florl!/.--Bencdict has shown
(1Jl5, p. 2U8) that thp proportion uf inert body fat and active prot/)-
p!O.8I1U·C tiSSlJ1' influenc(·s the metaholism. This influence may be as
elfcetive as that of siile within the human :-;pecies. An influence of this
kind CaIJlloL, howel'e[', be llsed as an explanation for the ",urfaee law if
animals of considerably different size are compared. Thus Carman and
:llitchdl (HJ2o, p. &;0) have calculated that if a rat consisted entirely
of actin' protopl:lsm, then a man, with his lower metabolism pel' unit
of weight, should on that basis contain only !1.-t- kg of active protoplasm.
Dreyer, Hay, and Y~,lker (1910. p. 1:'iR) suggested that the blood
/'1,111 me of an animal was proportional to the surface area of that animal
:tnd that "th:' practice of t'xpressing the hlood volume ns n percentage
of the bUlly weight is both errOllC'OlS and mislp[vling." The results of
(he:-;e lo.st narrll'd investigatOl's may be summarizerl ill table G.
Column! of taLle 6 shows that aeeonlillg to th(-' forrnulas of Dreyer,
Hay, ::tnd Walker the blood volume is to he calculated by multiplying
the % power of the body weight by a factor which varies directly with

16.
330 HiT[Iarrlia [Vol. 6, No. 11
the size of the animals, if different speeies are concerned. The blood
I . f U,"23 • h lb" 4 2' (0.632) I hvo ume per umt 0 rr I m t e ra) It IS . tImes OJ.:t9 as arge as t at
of the mouse. From column 5, on the other hand, it may be concluded
that the blood volume per gram of body weight is not related to the
size of the animals, i.e., that the blood volume is proportional to the
body weight.
The theory of Dreyer, Ray, and Walker that the blood volume is
proportional to the body surface (or the % power of the body weight)
must therefore be refuted on the basis of their own results, at least
from the interspecific point of view.
Recently Brody, Comfort, and Matthews (1928, p. 33) as a result of
extensive rpsearch and ingenious calculation,7 have claimed that "the
weight of the kidney, the weight of the liver, and practically the weight
of the lung, blood, stomach, and intestine increase directly with the
body weight at the same relative rate as does the surface." Their
results (see their fig. 0, p. 17) indicate, however, that the surface areA.
follows the function WIl
•
71
and the blood volume the funetion WO.83.
If animals of very different size are compared, it can be seen that
the blood volume cannot he proportional to the body surface, but must
be related to a function which is not far from the first power of the
weight.
It may be that the difJerences in the blood quantity pf'r unit of body
wpi/!;ht in anyone spl'ries are affected by age and fat content. Possibly
the heavi8r animals used are on the average older and fatter. This idea
gains fltrength from the work of Trowbridge, Moulton, and Haig (1915,
p. 16), who state in relation to cattle that "the fatter the animal thp
smaller the proportion of blood."
Linrlhard (192G, p. Gfj9) found the blood quantity of man (11
healthy subjeeis) to be 4.9 per cent of the body ,wight. If the blood
quantity were proportional to thp body surface, the 70-gram body of
tllP rat should contain 34 cc of blood, or -19 per cent.i
; Surface integrator measurements OIl48~ dairy cows, 341 beef cattle, 11 horses,
and 16 swine.
8 If W", be the weight of man and W, the weight of rat we may formulate:
BI d I f W"'3' 0.049 W",DO vo ume 0 man pel' -, UnIt = W"',/,----
Blood volume of rat pel' iF/3 unit = _Xli'r_WT
2!"
If the blood volume were proportional to W'/3, the two quotients would be
equal, thus:
X= 0.049---'!j"W,'/3 = 0.049( IV",) ]/3 = 0.049X 1 000'/3=0.49=49 per cent.
W",'I"W, W, '

17.
.inn.) Hi32J 331
It follows thus that the smfnc(' law ii'i not a mattcr of the tissues or
cells and cannot be n matter of the chemical compcsition of the animal,
!Jut is a matter of the animal as a whole. The two ~reat J'('~lllutOl's, the
Ill.·rvous and endocrine ~ystems, control the inteni'iily of hlood How and
til(' distribution of the hlood to the t issues, so that the l'I'i'ipiratory tnd~lb-
olism of animals of diffcrent size' is approximately proportional to the
'2;3 power of thf' body weight.
811lface [.nlll nnd RIood Circnlation.-Loewy (192;, p. 22) hns
'ummarized data on the oxygl,n cOlltent of arh,rial and VCl);)US blood.
It follows frolll his tahlt' that a liter of blood which paSSf'::i the capillary
~ystt:'lll leavt's on the average CO to 70 ec of oxygen in tlw tis~ues, amI
fmther that this amount is independent of the size of thl' :LLlimal. It
is therefore soulld to assume that the amount of oxygen cUlTied 10 the·
ti::islJ('s per unit of time (illtcnsity of oxygen flow) is on the flvemgc
proportional to t he amount of blood P:~i'iillg the tissues p('!' unit of
lime (intl'n~ity of blood flow).
Hoes~lin (1S8~f) flttempted to i'ihow that for gl')lnelrical and mechani-
cal relli'iOl~S the amount of blood ealTied to (he tiS:>llU' pl'l' unit or time
Jllust bt:' pl'oportion[ll to the ~J power of the body wPi,ght. He ha:>ei'i his
I'('csolling on the assumption of the geomr·tric;ll similarity of brge and
"nwll animals. Tllis geomdri(~al ,;imibrity llll;3l1S that all dilllen-irllls
which are in certain al'ithmetical mhos in small nnimab are ill the same
ratio in largl' anilllal:3. Thus, if the) cross-,~l'ctiiJn are:t of the amta of flo
"mall animal be (/ per c(mt of the cros,s-,spctioll area of the hody or b per
unit of tIll' '3.-;; puVpr of the borly "'eight, the aorta of a br!!;e' :lllilll:tl also
will have a crc1's-section nrea hich is a per cent of till' ''!''lss-1'(·etioll ;Hea
of its body m b per unit of the :! ~ puwer of till' hody (·ight. This assllmp-
,jOIl, especially with regard to thl' aorta, has really heen fairly el,):>ely
,'onfirrm'd by meaSll'emcnts of Drl'yer, Ray, ami Valker (H1l2), who
found that the cross-section area of th(~ amt[L is proportional to a func-
tion of the 0.70 to (J./2 pmver of the hody w(~ight.
Thc amount of blood pa:>sing a certain ('ross :3eetion of the body per
unit of time is tIw product of the sum of the cross-8f-)etioll :treas of all
hluml vessds in that hmly crot's section and the liuenr vl'!ocity of the
Llood flow. The lineal' ve].)cit.v i", according to Volkmann (Hoes~lin,
lS88, p. 324), illdcp(mdent of t11(' size of the animal. Therdul'l', ('()Jl-
C]Ucll':'; H()('sslin, the product, the intensity of hlood flow, is 1Jroporhonal
to the sum of the cross-section arl'flS of the blood Vl'sseb and i~ thus
proportional to the '3< pOlVer of tIlt' hody w(,ight, ;l 1'uggestioll whil'h
t'xplains, according to hilll, also the fact 1.h.lt the llll't:1holi:-;1ll is propor-
tional to that POWl'' of til(> hOlly w(·ight.

18.
332 II ilgardia [Vol. 6, No. 11
'1
s
r
As the capillaries of a horse are not ten times as wide as those of a
guinea pig, but are of approximately the same size, it follows that the
principle of similarity mentioned above applies only to the large vessels.
Hoesslin's explanation of the surface law is therefore satisfactory only
if we can understand why the linear velocity in the large vessels is
independent of the body size.
The question may be related to the economy in energy consumption
for blood circulation. The specific current energy, i.e., the energy
neces:-;ary for the transport of 1 cc of blood through <1 given part of the
duet, is higher for turbuhmt than for laminar flow, as has been stated by
Hess (1927, p. 901). The saIlle author demonstrated that under normal
conditions the blood flows laminarily (1917, p. 477).
In certain pathological cases where the viscosity of blood is abnor-
mally low, murmurings in the large vessels may be heard, which, accord-
ing to Hess (1927a, p. 913) indicate that the normal vplocity of blood
flow cannot be far from the critical velocity, beyond which the flow
would be turbulent.
According to Reynold (Hess, 1927, p. 900) the critical velocity is
inversely proportional to the diameter of the duct. 9 If it were advan-
tageous for the animal to maintn,in in its lm!!:e vessels a velocity close
to the criticn,l, and if this advantage were the determining factor for
the velocity of blood flow, one would expt'ct, n,ccording to Reynold's
formula, that the linen,r velocity of blood flow in animals of different
size would be inversely proportionaJ to the linear dimensions of the
body or to the Ji power of the body weight. This expectation is in
contradiction to the constaney of the linear velocity of blood flow,
instead of being an explanation for it.
Hoesslin's theory of the relation between surface law and blood
circulation is thus less satisfaetory than it might appear at a first
glance (see for example Lehmann, 1926, p. 577).
For a sehematical comparison of the blood circulation in small and
large animals three groups of vessels :-;hould be distinguished:
1. The larger arteries and veins, whieh may be called the individual
vessels. They are depemlent in size (diameter and length) upon the
body :-;ize of the animal. Their number is independent of the size of the
animal.
9 Rp-ynold's equation for the critical velocity reads as follows:
:!OOO'l
v = ~I'S
V = critical velocity
viscositv of the fluid
density 'of the fluid
radius of the duct

19.
.l:IIl.,l!1:J2] K7< tI" r: BUlly 8i?1 ,"II[ J/d,,/),,!i811J
2. A second group of ye:,sels, represented by the c:lpillaries. which
lIlay be termed the tissue ves:·wI8. Their size is independent of the size
of the animal, but their number depends upon the amuunt of tissws and
therefore upon t he size of the animal.
3. The connecting vessels, which connect the :3ystcm of the individual
vPsCiels with the capillary net work. The vessels of this group depewl
in size as wt'll as in numher upon the body size of till' animal.
The runount of hloocl passing a crOS8 section of the thwt Jlt,r unit of
i illl(' is, for laminar flow, aecording to PoissclIilIel r] prop')l'tiomll to the
difference in pressl'C nt the end of a given part of that duct awl invers:>!y
proportional to the hemodynamic resistrmce. The hem:),lynamic
resistance is proportional to the length ::tnd inversely pJ'Op:)rtion~d to
the square of the cross sedion of thr duct.
F01' the individual vessels, which lllay cullectively 1)(' repres('llit)'[ as
a .-ingle V('s8el, the length is proportional to the fVI/a amI the cmss snet.ion
jJJ'Oportional to W2
". The hemodynamic resistance of this syst Iml is
. WI,,, 1
thereforr proportIOnal to ~- or -.
WI,''' lV
The arterial blood pn'ssure of animaL, is indepew lent of the brFly size
(Tigerstedt, 1)21, p. 20D). This may br ex[wet<'d from Hocsslin's
point of view of the similarity of large and small animal:<, for it is ;1
technical !'Uk that pipes of diffenmt width in which the wall thicknpss
is proportional to the diameter can stand the S:Ulll' press1l'f'. (Hiitte,
102;'>, yol. 1, p. (jiG.) If, however, in pmsuance of this ide:l, it is ussumed
tl1:11 there is the same difference in blood pressure for corresprmding
parts of the individual vessels of large and small animals, then according
to l'oisseuille's law the intensity of blood flow wuuld be proportional
to the body w('ight instead of being proportional tn the % pUWt'!' of this
term.
The sallle result is obtained for the tissue vessels if it i8 assumed that
the number of available capillaries is proportional to the alllount of
tissue, and hence to the body weight, and thnt theavt~l'agelengthand
width of erich capillary nre indt~pendl,nt of the body size. It is difficult,
if not imposRibll', to verify this assnmption. The number of open l,lmt
;" The law of Ptlisseuille may be formulatpd as follows:
y ;_.,e__:)"PX t W!Jl'fP:
Srr7)L
l' = volume of liquid passing a certain part cd' the duct
'I = efO."S sectiml of duet
L = length of dud
2.p.~ ditrt,rcnet' in pl'e.,~ur('
t time
rr = a.14 . ..
7) ,·isco,it.y

20.
334 HHgorrlia [Vol. 6, No. 11
not the nUllllJPr of available) capillaries which are counted under the
microscope varies atcording to whether the muscle from which a part
is ohHerved has been in action or at rest before the animal was killed.
Krog;h (J 929, p. C:3) counted in a section from a stimulated muscle of
the frog 195 open capillaries pel' squ:tre millimeter, while the correspond-
ing unstimulated musele had not more than 5.
Krogh 0929, p. ;)0) fonnd on the aver:lge fewer open capillaries
pel' unit of cross HCttion in tissues of a large animal than in those of a
small one,: the muscle of a horse (.550 kg) had 1,400capillaries per sq.
nun, aIHI the mUl-lclc of a dog (5 kg) had 2,fJOO capillaries per sq. mm.
Tel'l'oine (HJ24) bases his theory of the relation between body size and
metabolism upon thil-l fact. The average number of open capillaries is,
however. a result of the regulatioil of blood flow by the nervous and
the 0ndocrine s}'stf'ms and cannot therefore hp used [ts an explanation
for t he regulation of blood flow to a certain level.
Less contrallidion is to be found if the surface law is related to the
rate of heort beat. The tot al blood volume in an animal is proportional
to the body weight (sec p. 3~:W), and the blood volume moved by one
hrart beat is, in mammals, a constant part of the total blood volume,
namely 1/2G to 1 29, accorcling to Vierordt (cited by Iisch, 1927,
p. 121S). The pube mte in the mouse (M1I8 m1l8wl1l8) is 520 to 780
beats per minute, in man 7(), and in the horse 34 to 50. A frequency of
300 to JOO ,,"oltld be classed as extreme tachycardia in man (Winterberg,
1927, p. iJ71). The contraction of the heart muscle in the horse requires
0.1 sl'coml (Tigerstedt, 1921, p. 209); the pulse rate of the mouse
would mean tetanus in the heart of a horse. These facts indicate why
the pulse rate should he inversely proportional to a function of the body
weight in animals of widely different weights, but they give no satisfac-
tory clue as to why this relation should obtain exactly between animals
of e10scly similar size. The situation is similar to that between the
surface law and temperature regulation (see p. 326).
The pulse rate reported for different individuals of the same species
diffrrs so considerably that it would seem at first /.!;lance almost im-
possible to determine an exact relation between pulse rate and body
size. For an approximate estimate, however, the logarithmic method
a:- used by Brody, Comfort, and Mathews (1928) may be applied on
data for the pube rate of elephant, horse, cattle, sheep, and rabbit
f.!;iven by Rihl (192i) and the relation of pulse rate and body weight
reduced to the equation:
P = ISGXW-1/ 4
"'here P = pube rate (beats per minute)
W = body weight in kilograms

21.
KI,I1)[1": Bod!! Size 111111 ]ldlloo!ism 335
III urder to give an f'xplanation for the surface law, the pulse rate
should be proportional to the -,~/~ power of the weight instead of the
_1'1 power.
,1£ (he volume per heart beat were exaetly proportional to the body
weight and the pulse rate were exactly proportional to the - 31 power
of the hody weight, the intensity of blood flow woul,l be proportional to
the ::l power of the hody weight. This condition would really corre-
spOll1! to the empiricn,! result on basal metabolism shown in table 1
Ip. :; II) mow than to the surface law.
The influence of body size on metabolism may reasonably be related
to ()~'gen transport, but no evidcnre cun be found from these theoretical
cnJi"id('rations that the metabolism of animals is more eIosely related
to 1heir geometric sUl'face than to some other function, as for example
t!)(' :Lf power of the body weight.
lilolo(/icol Explanation of the Relation Between Body Size and M etabo-
!islll.--From the interspecific point of view, two of the four kinds of
e:pl:1nations for th(· influence of body size on metaholism stand criticism:
]'('.!nI1ation of a constant body temperature, ancI geometric ancl dynamic
1'I'1:llions of oxygen transport. But neither the out:-;ide temperature
alone 1101' the intensity of blood flmv determines the metabolism.
Lehmann ([H2H, p. fi77) writes that the metaboli:-;m of an organ is not
increased if it gets more oxygen, but that more blood is hrought to the
orgnn if it requires more oxygen. This teleological statement, however,
is not an explanation either.
The biological theory is that those animals are t he fittest in natmal
sf'!('ction in whieh the metabolism is so regu!atf'd that the requirements
for maintaining a constant hody temperature ancl the energy require-
111l'ntN for the necessary lllcchanieal work are in an eeonomical relation
with the geoml'tric and dynamic possibilities of oxygen transport.
III the introduction, I claimed as a working hypothesis that there
W:lS a general influf'ncp of body size on metaboli:-;m, leaving the question
open as to how this influence might be formulated. Neither the empirical
J'('sults from tahle 1 (p. 317) nor the discussion of the theory of the
Slll'faec law gave evidence for the belief that the rate of metabolism is
IlJOrc closely related to the body surface than to some other function
of the body size. The general formulation of the law of bocly size and
metaholism is that the logarithm of the metabolism is proportional to
tLI' logarithm of body weight.
Derluetion.-The reason for the excur:-;ion into the theory of the
:·.urfac(~ law was the discrepancy between the surface law and the
empirical results in table 1, based on tIl<' recent work on metabolism.
The study of this theory fails to show that there is any evidence for a

22.
336 Uilgardia [Vol. 6, No. 11
closer rE'lation of metabolism to the geometrical surface of animals than
to some function of the body weight; for example, the ~i power, which
is in bettf'r agreement with the empirical results in table 1 (including
ruminants) .
APPLiCATION OF RESULTS
The Unit of Body Size for .11easllring thc Rclatiuc Ratc of M ctabolism.-
It follows from the result of metabolism studies as well as from the
diseu"sion of the theory of the smface law that metabolism can be
related to a power function of the weight, and the unit of body surface
given up. There are two reasons for hesitating to do so. First, the .
best-fitting power function cannot yet be given definitely. Further
investigation may show that some unit other than W3
/
4
may be prefer-
able. Secondly, the unit of body surface has been relatively long in use,
ancl much work has been done to develop it. Even if the theoretical
and empirical weakncs" of the surface law is admitted, it may be
preferable to keep the square meter of body surface as a unit of measure-
ment as long as it proves to be useful, and especially if it meets the
first requirement of any unit for measurement, namely, to be well
defined. It seems, however, that the more work done to determine the
surface area, the less is one able to define the unit of it for the measure-
ment of metabolism.
The simplest method of determining the surface area of an animal
was probably that of Riehet (1889, p. 221). He calculated the surface
from the hody wf'ight assuming the animals to be spheres. If a specific
gravity of 1.0 is considered, the calculation of Richet would be:
8 = 4.84X lP/3
where 8 = surface in square centimeters
W = body weight in grams
Meeh attempted to get a closer approximation of the true smface
of the animal by choosing different parameters of the % power of the
weight instead of the sphere-constant 4.R4. Meeh writes:
8 = kX1P/3
where S = surface in square centimeters
W = weight in grams
and where k "aI'ics according to the different species of animals and
seemingly even within one species; in man for example from 9 to 13,
as Harris and Benedict (1919, p. H2) show in their history of the
development of the unit of body surface. A table of the differt>nt
Meeh factors is given by Lusk 0928, p. 123).

23.
.Jn ll ., In3~1 Kleibl r: Body Hi:f U?lrl JIetaholi.,m
Latcr on, not ouly WE're different coefficients sUggcstl'(I, but also
the e:[Jo!wnts of the power function were varied. In addition in~enious
lllcthods have been developed to measure the surface area directly.
T!Je n:ltural qucBtion as to which of the different methods of deter-
Illininj.( the smface al'f;a ~ives the dosest results for the true slll'face
11.:lt!s !o a serious difficulty. Yhat does belong to the tnll' smfaee and
wlw t de<'s not helong to it'? [n trying to answ('J' this question oue finds
111:il ll'l! unly the Bkill is elusticH hut alBD the conception of itB ge')metrical
SIIII:II'" :trca on the living animal, and that fact, for tbis particular ques-
tion. is worse. But suppose it would be possible to dcfin{' {'xactly a
true sml'ace g{'ometrically and to confirm what is indeed to be cxpected
-lUundy, that thE' elaborate modern methods would allow us to
ddcl'IuinE' the true surface area with a higher degree of accuracy than
Hiclll't's forlllllla~the second question still remains: Is the morpho-
logical improvement in this casp of physiological significance?
As early as 1884 D'Arsonval (cited by lInnis and Benedict, 1919,
p. 1::)1), stated that the physiological surface of the animal was not tho
same as the "physical." The ventral part of the skin of an animal
!i'ing outdoors which ralliatps to thl-' ground may have a hpat loss
'()r,Y different from thr dorsal part radiating to the Bky. A similar
"jew has been exprpssed by Cannan and Mitchpll (10211, p. 380). In
order to be exact, the different rate of radiation resulting from different
colors of the covpring should 1e considered. Begusch and Vagner
(1 H21i) indced Plaim that the hpat output of dark-eolored guinea pigB is
121 pel' cent of that of light-coloJ'('c! guinl:'ll pigs; anti recently Dcyghton
11 !J2!l, p, 1.51) put forward a similar idea, mentioning that, according to
(IP Almeida, negroes in Brnzil hall a metabolism about 8 per ceot hi[!h(~l'
than that of white men. These staU'mcnts,. espe(~ially in their relation
to tlw c()lar of tlw skin, may not be abow criticism (gel' Du Bois,
1930, p. 222), but ('E'rtainly Bl'nedid and Talbot (l!J21, p. lIiO) an'
eorree! in writing that: "The physical tllld physiological factors influenc-
ing the heat loss from till' surface of til£' hmnnn hOlly are so different
at different parts of the body as to preclude any gCIll'ralization that
equnl nreas result in (,qual heat loss."
Tt might be thought that on the aVl:'rage the "physiological snrface"
would be a constant part of thc ~eol1letrienl surface; and for an npproxi-
JlI:ltion this supposition is probably cOlTect; but there does not scem to
be enough reason for the IJelid that this proportionality is so accurate
rlS 10 justify improyements in 1I1f'thocls or formulas which all:>w the
" :Ylitehell (l92n, p. ,1-10) fOllnd the area of the skinned carcass of the rat to be
·130 :''1. em, The llllstretched skin me'i~ured 536 sq, CIIl. A moderate strf'tching
inCl'LI1Sed the area to 630 sq. ern.

24.
338 HilgarrIia. [Vol. 6, No. 11
determination of a "true" geometric surface area with a few per cent
less variation than has been possible hitherto.
If a cat is curled up for sleep, as it is during a considerable part of
its life, the calculation of its surface as a sphere is, from the point of view
of heat loss, probably better than the improved calculation according
to Meeh, because in the latter case one calculates the ventral part of
the skin as surface, although in the curled position this is certainly
not a cooling surface comparable to the dorsal part.
Thus, even if the surface of thp skin wcr,) well llefined, the improve-
ments ill measuring it may not he significant for the question of body
size ancl metabolism.
The development of as many different formulas for calculating the
surface as there arc species concerned, or even mon', physiologically
not only is a doubtful improvement but has a definite disadmntage.
The present situation in reducinl!: the metabolism to the unit of body
surface i:> similar to the I!:eneral condition of measuring lengths in the
Middle Ages when the size of the foot varied from country to country
and in referring to a certain length, one therefore had to be sure which
foot was useo. This situation is present in measuring the metabolism
even within one spedes. If it is stated, for example, that a steer has a
metabolism of m calories per square meter of body surface, it is necessary
to find out whether that surface area has been calculated on the ba:>is
of Meeh's formula and, if so, which constant has been used. The
calculation may have been made according to Moulton, or according to
Hogan's formula; it is also possible that the author has a formula of his
own, or that he determined the surface of his steers directly. And if the
method of determining the smface is known, further difficulty arises when
one attempts to compare this result with others also obtained on steers,
but on the basis of different methods for the surface determination.
Olle may rparlily come to the conclusion that improvements in
determination of surface lead to a labyrinth, and that it might be better
to go back and relate the metabolism to the unit of body weight, giving
up the comparison of the metabolism of animals so different in size
that the reduction to the unit of weight might imply a considerable
error. This has recently been done by Benedict and Riddle (1929) in
their work on the metabolic rate of pigeons. But this step out of the
chaos should he the start rather than the end. Benedict and Riddle
also use a common unit, the weight; they can do so as long as their
individuals are similar in size. But they cannot, for example, directly
compare the metabolism of ring doves and pigeons. And if within onE'
species they had material with large variations in body size, the question
would also arise whether it is correct to calculate on the basis of the

25.
ll!' iIJlf: Body 8izl: und J[daIJolism 33n
prppOJ'l jUI1:tlity .of metabolism to :veight~ Ina good .d()al of metabolism
York :]ll'; qUt:,tlOn cmmot be aVOIded. fhe companson of tht' mc'tabo-
!i-Ill oj diJ'i(~r('nL animals CD nnot be given up, and thf'refore the search
ful' a t "wJ1wn basis for eomparing til<' nlPtaholism of nnimals different
ill size (: IlIlot be giwlI up; for on this basis alone can studies be made
of O[lll'l' inflllCIH'eS on the nwtabolism, i':'llch as age, sex, and condition
of 1)(1' i,l ,
11 !fll ( uno. p. 140) has proposed to reduce the metabolism to the
l!llil "I 11"" illstC'ud of the body surfaCE'. Stocltzner (1928) uses the
,-:!lll(' lilli when he calculates for medical purposes the energy require-
lUC'111 d lllan as lGOXl'p/3. Brody, ComfOl't, and :'.Iathews (Hl28,
p, :2:; ;.Is:) prefer the use of a power function of the weight a" a unit for
C'akll!:lling till' metabolism. The last-mentioned authors write: "Ve
do lld (Illite "ee the logic involved first in rclating area to body weight,
th('/I ,'olll rut ing area frolll body weight, and finally relating heat pro~
,[Ut'! i, ,11 to the computed area. Why not relate heat production to the
"()d~' I('ight directly'?" ~Iitrhdl's ohjeC'tion 0930a, p. c1i4) to this
Pl'olil:<al j:,; that it ignores the physical significalJee of the relation
1)('( «'Il s1ll'face and hc'at produetion. Indeed, the empirical resnlt
thai I h(~ mdabolism is proportional to a powc'r function of thp weill;ht
is illt iqlt'llll(mt of any theory about the physical background of this
reb I len.
But the lise of W" as the unit of body size for metaholi"rn docs not
1lC:<,(!',iDxily exclude a physical significance of the relation between surface
:lld heat production. If tl1<' sll'face is calc'ulated according to Richet
as ·1)",1 X lP/3 aIHI if the heat loi':'s is proportional to the surface, it is,
as a lll:lttl'r of ('ourst', al"o pl'oportional to lV~!3. A real difference in
opinioll can occur only if the surface of different animals cannot be
CXI)j, "sed as the same power functioll of the weight.
The snrface 1)1'1' unit of W2
/
3
, or the Mcch constant (k = --,'j --)
TV2/ 3
i,,:) 1))('a:3ll'p for It relatively large or small surface of animals; this term,
",Lid, is about 10 for mo~t animlils, goes up as high as 13 for the rabbit,
sh,;"illi; the' infiuencc of it" large cars. Calculating the metabolism
sililply t.o the ~~J pmVl'r of th(' body IVl'ight, an abnorm:l.lIy high value
1'01' I he' Inc'tabalism of rahbits would be expected. This is not the case.
" j! l 11 DOl, p, lUi) found II hasnl metabolism for thl' mbbit of only
il() Calorici' P£'l' sfluar!:' met!:']' using thl' ~Ieeh formula 8 = l2.n l'p/3.
ft j;c to lw "tated, however, thnt t.he value of i7G is still too high. Voit
'Tltes that rhis ,-aiue would have been milch lowered had he avcragl'd
all data available on the basal metabolism of mbbits. If the area of
the ('aI's is subtracted from tlit' body surface, the metabolism of the

26.
3-10 FIilgardia. [Vol. 6, No. 11
rabbit fits better into Rubner's scheme of 1,000 Calories per square
meter, for it is then 017 Calories (Lusk, 1028, p. 12-1). In determining
the surface of the rabbit, it is therefore doubtful whether or not the
area of the ears belongs to that surface. This means a difference of 20
per cent, and it may bo asked: What do we !!;:lin if we can develop a
method which allows us to determine the surface area to within few per
cent accuracy, if an amount of 20 per cent is in allY way doubtful?
.A physiological rea~iOn may be found for subtracting the area of the
rabbit cars from its total slll'facr area, hut what remains of the surface
law if corrections of this kind have to be made? What remains is in
accordance with the empirical result of table 1: A general infhwnce of
body size on the metabolism which may be related to W" as well as,
or even better than, to the actual surface.
1t may thereforf' be concluded: Although no definite power function
of the body weight ean as yet be given as the best unit to which the
metabolism of animals which differ in size may be calculated, there is
reason to give up the unit of body surfaee because' it is not well definf'd
and because its strict application tends to obscure rathf'r than to clear
up the knowledgc of the influence of hody size on metabolism. Any
unit of body weight from the % up to the %' power is pl'rferable to the
unit of hody surface bf'cause a powpr function of the body weight is
so much hetter defined than the unit of hody surface and because its
~enE'ral application to all homoiotherIlls opens such a wide field from
the point of view of comparative physiology that evcn eow;iderably
greater deviations from the mean by the use of W" instead of the surface,
would be outweighed.
The Intraspecific .1ppl-ication of the I nicrspecl:fic Results.--The hest-
fitting unit of body sizc for comparing the mptabolism of rat, man, and
steer has been found to be W3/ 4• Is there objection to using this unit
for comparisons within olle species?
From a table on the metabolism of dogs given by Rubner (1928,
p. 1114) it follows that the metabolism per square meter of body surface
is on the avprage somewhat higher in the smaller dogs than in the larger
ones. The coefficient of tendency, the trrm T (see p. 320), is in this
case - 0.362 per cent of the mean.
From another table by Kunde and Steinhaus (1021), p. 128) givinp;
also results obtained on dogs by Rubner the contrary conclusion would
be drawn, namely a larger metabolism ppr square meter of body surface
in the larger dogs, the term T being +0.200. As Rubner caleulated the
surface on the basis of Meeh's formula, the result is applicable also for
the % power of the weij!;ht.

27.
KI, I,U"?": Body 8i" <lnd JIdabolislII
Figure,; given by Hiehet (1889, p. 222) for the metabolism of mbbits
,;}101" t hat the metabolism per unit ofW2/ 3 is decreased with increasing
body weight. Thf'se data, as well as the first-mentioned tahle of Rubner,
though confirming the general infiuence of body size on metabolism and
the tb'or~' that this infiuf'nce is more closely rehted to the % power of
!,od" weight than to body weight directly, seem to ht' in contradiction
to t ill' mo~'(' iipl~cial interspecific result. that the bt'st-fittin~ unit of hody
weight ic: fmm W'l •72 tu Ivo.,4 or ilPPl'oxirnatrly the %: power.
.- :I/.;e amI hody condition (especially fat content) were not takt'n
into ('fillsideration, thl'ir clata do not indicate whether or not the heavier
nnilwils Wl~re on the aVl:'ragf' also the fatter and older ones. Hence
no l'ondnsiyt' answer to the question with regard to rabbits or dogs can
be obtainrd though these two species vould be especially suitablf' for
int m;;pccifiG studies on the relation of body size and metl1bolism.
'I'll(' data on the 136 men in the biometric study of Harris and Bene-
did iJDlfl, p. ·10, ff.) have been arranged in eight p:roups :weul'lling
io body lVeip:ht. The age was well eC[ualized among these groups. The
simI(' hns been carrierl ont for the HJ::l 1V0men. Tn this rasc the group
of the heaviest womf'n has been omitted from cnkulation hec:Luse the
!lYl'ru,ge flgr' of this g;roup was mlleh higher than the average age of the>
oth(l'~rolps. Thp average metabolism and weight of those groups have
heen mhmitted to the sume raleubtion as the data on the thirtl,pn
groups in table 1. The result of this ealeulation is shuwn in tahle 7.
TABLE i
!hs L '!FT.UOLlSM OF H CMA:' BEINCS
(~.LlTLlTE() TO DIFFERE.)IT r:><ITS OF' BODY SIZE
----------------'-'.. _._- _.•. - _.'.-._--._-
-------- ---~r-.~ V(~~ngn~lt=--n1Pt~,l~)li~m '---I-----(~~~):r~-~)f-~:;l-~(:-f~-
i Cals. pL'r 2-1 hl)llr~ jJt'r lJDlt (jf in pnr el'nt of m,~an
: body;,;iz(' I (T)
li"it "I' bod)' ,iw !-------------- 1 ' - - . - - - - -
-n~~~L~J_;~~.-l:ig~)-)-----------·: --;:~~-.----!----~:;m~~~- -I ·----~=;~;--I·-· ~;;;;~ -
W', [ ,_2.;, I ti7.8 I -O.lS," I -0339
Jr"; I ~g.1 827 -0. lOS -0.242
IF", 134,1 122.9 I +0053 i -·il lJ,;tj
Ir,,: 20;'.3 IS2.7 1 +0:302 I +0.1:)0
8· J2:1,11", ,I,-"b, ,"30 767 I -0.040 I -0.177
~_~~_r~~~~~'~";~~~_1~(j~~ ~_ _~~___ 857 . +O.15:_L~_~ ~~o~ 1~~~
'Ill!:' two main I'f'sults obt:tincd by in tersperific comparison seem
to h: eOllfinnefl within the human species: (l) the metaholism is more
e]o:,,'ly related to the surfacr' or to the %' power r,f the weight than to its
fir"1 power; (2) there is no evidence that the surface of the skin is a
better unit for the calculation of the metabolism than some power
funetion of the weight would be.

28.
342 Hilgardw [Vol. 6, No. 11
The best-fitting unit for calculatin~ the metabolism of human beings
seems to be a power function close to WO.6. This is not in accordance
with the result obtained by interspecific comparison whpre the term
WO.72 , or even WO.H, if ruminants are included, was found to be the
best fitted.
As already mentioned, the rpsults in tablp 7 within the human species
may be obscured by the influence of other factors. I have attempted to
eliminate two of those factors by calculation, namely age and build,
the two influences which are considered besides weight in the regression
equation of Harris and Benedict for the prediction of human metabolism.
The calculation has been carried out as follows:
Influence of Age l:n 1:fan.-The influence of a~e Oil the metabolism
has been calculated from the material which Benedict (1915, p. 284)
has selected for this purpose. Three results have been omitted in order
to get rid of the possible influence of stature. The calculation is shown
in table 8.
TABLE 8
AGE; AND ~IETABOLIS:ll:IN MAN
I
Age
I I Total
I Weight, Height, Specific Cals. per
Group Average
I
kg. em. ~tature· 24 hours
Range years
Average of 14 men 16-41 26.0 60.3 1,578
7 younger men 16-24 20.3 60.9 168 42.9 1,631
7 older men 26-41 31. 7 ;'9.7 168 43.1 1,525
Diffen'nce 11.4 -1.2 0 0.2 106
Differeaee due to weightt 23
Difference due to :tge S3
Difference due to age per year = ~ = 7.3 Cals.
11.4
Per cent of avemge metabolism (coefficient of age) ~- xl00 =0.46 per cent.
1,578
* For definition see p. 343.
t The correction for the difference in weight has been ca.lculated on the basis of the equlltion
'!f~ =0.73% (see p. 320) which was derived from table 1.
From a graph given by Harris and Benedict (1919, p. 120) it may
be concluded that the heat production per square meter of body surface
decreases in men 0.37 per cent of the average (926 Cals.) for each year
increase in age; the corresponding figure for women is 0.34 per cent.
The advantage of obtaining the coefficient of age on 14 men as
described above is that other influences are well excluded. The advan-
tage of the last-mentioned figures is that they are obtained from a
larger number of individuals.

29.
L _
343
Considering the variations which are to be expected, the second place
of the figure may be omitted, the decrease of metabolism per yearly
incrC:lse in age assumed to be 0.4 per cent of the metabolism at the
age of 30.
The metabolism differs according to whether a person is stout or
slim. as suggested by Benedict. Stature is no adequate IIIeasure for
an influence of that kind, for it depcnds on weight itself; stature must
1){' ('<Jnsidered in relation to body weight.
In animals of different size which are similarly built, the quotient
of budy length (or height in man) and body weight would still depend
on weight. The smaller the animals the larger it would be. A good
unit, however, which expresses in one figure how stout or slim an
individual is, and which is independent of the' body size, is the quotient
of body length (L) in centimeters divided by the cube root of body
L
weight (TV) in kilograms. This term W1
(3 may be called the specific
statlll'c. J2 As the weight is proportional to the volume, the cube root
of it is proportional to a linear dimension, thus the specific stature is a
term without dimensions.
In order to determine the influence of build on the metabolism, the
l'esllIts on the 136 men reported by Harris and Benedict (1919) have
been arranged according to the specific stature into two groups, as
shown in table 9.
TABLE 9
INFLt'ENCE OF SPECIFIC STATURE ON :vIETABOUSM IN :VI.~N
---- -- - - - - ~.._----_._.. __._-~._---_._-- . _ - - -
Group
Specific
stat.ure
L
lp/3
Calories producl~d in 24 hours
Average, 136 men 43.4 64. I 173 27.0 1.631 102.0 88.8 72.2
08 :-;lim ffit>n 44.8 59.1 175 25.9 1.567 103.3 90.1 73.5
68 stout men
I
41) 69.1 172 28.1 1,695 100.7 87.11 70.9
nifft~r{'n('e I +2.9 -10.0 +3 -2.2 -128 +2.6 +2.5 +2.6
Ditl'('Tt:'nct' due to age'" - 14 -0.9
I
-U.S -0.6
Difference due to l:ipe-
eific stature -142 +1.7 +1.7 +2.0
Dil1prencp pcr unit of
:,;peeific staturt~ +059 +0.59 +0.69
PO'r cent of the nveralle per cent per cl'nt per cent
I,copfficipnt of bUlld) +0 ..58 +0.1l6 +0.96
------
* 2,:!x0.4 per cent = O.,~8 per cent of the aVPTfq,(C.
12 The iuwrse of the specific stature has been used by Pirqnet and adopted by
Cowgill and Drahkin Il!J27, p. {l) as a measure for the state of nutrition.

30.
344 Hil[Jartlia rvul. 6, No. 11
Lng of
(~orrected Cais.
1----
The coefficient of huild, i.e., the per cent variation in metabolism
per unit of variation of l'ipecific stature, differs according to whether the
influence of size is assumed to he related to the % or to the % power
of the weight, because, on the average, the heavier persons are also
the stouter and prohably fattf'r ones.
H the average metabolism of the 8 groups of men mentiolled on
page 341 is reduced to the same age and the same build by means of
thl' coefficient of age of 0.4 per cent and a coefficient of specific stature
of 1 per cent, then the logarithmic relation between body weight and
metabolism may be calculated as shown in table 10.
TABLE 10
LOGARITHMIC REL,TIO~ BETWEK'I' BODY WEIGHT .:",'D }fETADOLIS~' I~ MAN
, 'I 00 1
0
' , AverHge I" Cak
Group W log W ! ('orrceted
----~--,-'--'~-!---------i-'
.Avemge 1:~6 men I (H 1 I I ,o~5
ti8 light men I r,o 3 1. 748Hl 1,415 317422
:~;~:,:emrn j~~=1~~__:j=~~~:;~_~]~.,o,I'_7:~_~_~~_ ~:~::::
6 (log calories)
- , - - - - -
6 (log TV)
0.0738
0.10544
= 0.70
From this calculation the best-fitting unit of body size for compari-
sons of metabolism within the human species appears to be WO.70• The
analogous calculation by the use of the coefficient of specific stature of
0.58 pel' cent shows lp,3 as the best-fitting unit.
From the result just mentioned the % power of the weight seems
preferable to the ~i as unit for human metabolism. A conclusive
answer on the question which of the two power functions fits better
cannot, however, be given on th!' basis of the available data. Both the
% power of w{'ight with a coefficient of build of O.G pel' cent and the
% powc'r of weight with a coefficient of build of 1 pcr cent Illay be tested
by their accuracy in predicting human metabolism.
For that purpose the metabolism is formulated in the following
equation;

31.
,Jan"lU;,:!J Klfilwr: Budy Si::c a11d .l[ctabuli~m
.'11 = eX W"(l +a(A -11)+0(8-8)+ )
l _
345
M = basal metabolism at temperatmes above the critical
c = coefficicnt of r-;pecics and sex
IV = bally weight
n = exponent % or %
a = coefficient of ng-e
A = standal'll age (arbitrarily chosen constant)
(/ = actnal age
'P = cuefficicnt of build
S = standard specific stature (arbitrarily chosen constant)
8 = actual specific stature
This equation expresses three assumptiolls:
IT) That the metabolism of a person of standard age and specific
8t11tll'C has a llletab~)lism proportional to the nth power of its body
II'cight.
(21 That for each year abovc or bdow the standard age, thc metabo-
IiSlll is dl'crcased 01' increased by the same part a of t he metabolism
at stHlldard age and Imilc!.
1~3) That for each unit of spel~ific stature above or below the standard
spel'ifie stature, the metabolism increases or c!ecremwg by HlP same part
'P of the metabolism at standard age and build.
It may be found in later investigations that other influenceR can
he llwaslll'cd and added to the equation-for example, the relative
fat l'!lIltcnt of the hody, which is now cpllsidcr"d only insofar as it
infltH'nc(':'i the ~pecific stature.
Thr factor e has been obtained as follows:
The average wright of the 1:3:1 men in the study ()f Harris and
BeIwrliet (191 9. p. 57) was C·Ll kll;; the ~1 power of this lwerage is
22.O,)' The total hpat production per day was on the average
(Harris and BelleLlict, 1919, p. ti7) 1,G31.7 Cals.; thus the average heat
production per unit of the % power of the average wright was 72.04
Cals. This is for an uverall;e age of 27 years. For a standard age of :30
years the l1H'tnJJOlism would be lower--namely, according to the cneffi-
. t t' . I I I I 72 .04 ~ TI" hCJell 0 [to'e prevIOus v ( pve opel '~-'---- = 11 2 lIS IS t e
" . ' , 1+0.004X3 ..
faclllr c for the calculation on th(' hasis of W3/4. The corresponding fac-
tor lor [Tl2!:!, calculated similarly, is 100.7. The standard build has
Iwcn (';) lcubtf'el by dividing the average height hy the H' power of
the I'('igltt. The prediction equation for the lllt'tauollsm of man is
thus ohtflined:
(1) M = 71.2XW3/
4
[1+0.004(30-a)+0 01 (8-4:),-.01
(2) j}[ = lOO.7XW2,:l[l+0.004(30-1l)+O.OOO (8-4:3.4)]

32.
346 IYo!. Ii, ;[0. 11
The unalogous ealculation has been applied to the data on the 103
women in the study of Harris and Benedict. The prediction in this
case may be made according to tho equations:
J{ 65.S X U!J/4[1 +0.004(30-a) +0.018 (8 -42.1)]
Jf 92.1 X W~/:l[1 +O.004(~~O-a)+O.0l1 (8 -42.1)]
The daily heat prodllction predicted accorlling to the fOllr equations
was compared with the cOl'l'esponcling data actually observed. In order
to show the influence of correction for age and specific stature on the
accuracy of prediction, the uncorrected heat production on the basis of
the power function of the weight was also compared vith the actual
heat product ion.
Thr average deviation betwrcn predictell and observed heat produc-
tion, irrcspel~tiV(' of the sign in per ccnt of thr observed heat production,
is given in table 11 together with the square root of the mean square
deviation of the observed from the predicted. The conesponding data
resulting from the prediction of the metaholiRI11 by the regression equa-
tions of Harris and Benedict are added for comparison.
TABLE 11
AccuR.('Y OF PREDTCTlON OF HCMAX :VIF.TATJOLlSM
6.16~. 1)0
i.v,~rage·-----
I
dCV~~.iOn ,I I.d2
"0- -
n n
, - - - - - -
Formula
n:lfolj5; of
r.aleulation
- - - - - ~ - , .__._--------- -_. - ~ - -
------·----1------·__·_--
_sexJ
lV'I' c"rreeted for l7Ih.n I.lf=71.2xW'd [1 -1!.Woli30-o) +O.0Ji.,-~3.4)]
age and budd !
W'/" /,um:etl·d for :lren "II ~10().7xw,n [I HJ.004(30-n) +0 006(s -4:U) ) 5. DO i 6. [7
age and build 'I . . .. " "_ _ _ . _ I ' i ",'IIams and Dene- Men .1f -66.47,JO+13.,.,16 Tl +,).00.33£ -6.77..0" 4. J~ I 6._0
dict 19W ,1__ .__. _ . __• ". _ _ . _ . _ . " ~
lV'" uncorrected I :lien .If ~ 71.2xW'd I 0 10 I 7.72
W,I, uncorrected 1~~I~f~lOO.7xIV'.·:_ _ . _.. ._ _~~.L~55
IP" correeted for I Women .If ~65.8xIVa/d1 +0.0001 (:JO-a) +o.OlS<." -~2.1)] I 6.·12 I 7.9·1
ag" and build I I ' I . I
Tl" ..; corrected fOe. Women JI=H21xlF/J [1 +O.00011.3(J-!I)+(l.0l~(s-42.1)1 '6 :J.7 [ 7.8'1
age llnd build i I . I
Harris and Bene-' Women I "If =655.09;'5 +!J..'i03~ It' +18~9flL -~,07.5fia I fo. 27 I 7. SS
diet lJ19! i :
;:'::ml'ell'd [W,~mcu i J(.0658XW'-/.----~--------I-;;.. a~-Jli~l.SO-
W
2/J
un('o.rrect£.rl_J Wo~~~f =,():2.1xrr2~~. 1 ~.;j3_,_l~
There could hardly be It better recommendation for pith!:'1' one of the
four equations developell herein than the fact that they predict the
metabolism with practically the same degree of accuracy as the empirical
regression equations of Harris and Benedict (1019. p. 227),

33.
Kleiber: Bolly Size and Jldabolism 347
TIll' criticism of Krogh, presented by Boothby and Sandiford (1924,
p. SO) that the terms of Harris and Benedict are of purely statistical
natme does not apply to the equations developed in this paper; the
coefficients in the latter equations have a certain physiolof!;ical meaning.
Hlcducing the equation for the women to the average specific stature
of llll'n, the two results can be compared directly;
for women ill = G7.4XW3
/
4
[l+0.004(30-a)-L00l8 (8-43.·1)]
for men M = 71.2XW3
/
4
[1 +0.004(30-a)+0.010 (8-43.4)]
w1('l'e
rv = wpight in kg
a = age III years
stature in em
s = specific stature
weightl
/
3
OIl the basis of the sarne specific stature the ratio of the metabolism
of Illcn and women would therefore be as 71.2: fi7A = LO.nG. Without
redlldion to the same Rpecific stature the ratio is wider-namely,
71.2;f)5.8=1:0.9~, hel'ause on the average the women have a lower
specific stnture.
If the metabolism of the 136 nwn and 103 women studied in the
Carnegie "Nutrition Laboratory is reduced to a standard ago and stan-
dard specific stature, any power of the hody weight from the % to the
~'i ~erves as vell as or better than the unit of body surface for expressing
the influence of hody size on metabolism.
Therefore there is reus::m to apply for intraspecific calculation the
same power of the weight (within the montioned limits) which may hy
interspecific comparism be found the best.
UENERAL CO~CLl.:SIOj,"S
The result of recent work on the basal metabolism of different
species and the critical review of the fundamentals of the surface law
lmds to the suggestion that the smface law should he replaced by a
weight-power law. A power function of the hody weight gives a better-
defined unit for measurement than the unit of body surface.
From comparison within the human species it follows that the
metabolism may he formulated thus:
J{ = CXlP[l+a(A ~a)+I"(s-S)+ ]
Xot only is it probable that the metabolism of all homoiothcrms
may be expressed in the same scheme hut it seems that thc same
exronent of the bodyweight (n) lIlay be lIsed for inter:-;pecific (:omparisons
as well as for comparisons within one species.

34.
HiTgllrdill LVol. 0, ~o. 11
Hesearch on metabolir;m would be much more economical, i.e., less
time-consuming, if the term W" could be settlpd so that all authors would
express their re~mlts on the same basis. This task would H'quire fUl'ther
systpmatic experimental work, especially with regard to the critical
temperature. It would call for international cooprration and agreem(·nt.
SL1MARY
A table vit.h the rpsults of recent work on metabolism of different
animals from the ring dove and the rat to the sterr shows a closer
relation of the ba;,;al metabolism to the % power of body wieght than to
the geometric ~urface of the animal.
In order to study the question whether or not th('re is a theoretical
reas:m for lnaintailling the surface of the skin as the basis for comparing
the metabolism of animals whieh differ in sizp, foUl' theories of til(' surface
law, namely, tl'mperature regulation, nutritivr surface, compc;,;ition of
thp hcdy, and rate of blood circulation, are discuHsetl.
ft is demunstratrd that the animal can vary itf' specific insulation to
a considrrabk de/!;rep, and that then'fore an accuratp rdation between
surface and heat flow, aeconling to FOUl'ier's Law, is not to he expectrd.
Howevcr, a~ tIll' pOf'sihilities of altering the Hp('cific illsulation are
practically limited. thr }wat-loss theory for cold clinwk:, and the OV('1'-
hefltill/!; the'ory for hot climates stand criticism for approximate l'Ompari-
son of tht' heat-production of animals which differ sufficiently ill size.
Basing the surfacp law on the nutrit ive surfaces, the cell surfaces, or
the protoplasm ,;tructurcs has hrcn shown to be without warrant.
Differences in the composition of the body. inert fat, active proto-
plasm, and amount of blood, though unquPRtionably affccting metabo-
lism, cannot explain the conf'iderablt' influrncp of body size on the
metaholism of different kinds of animals. The fact that the basal
mptaholism of warm-blooded animals is approximately proportional
to the 2:; or the % power of thl' body weight i~ a matter governed by
the organism as a wholl'; it cannot he derived from a summation of the
vital functions of the cells or other parts of the body.
On tht, basis of the ,;imilarity in the building plan of all warm-blooded
animals and of the limited velocity of muscular contraction, it may be
cunceived that tllP intt'Ilsiiy of blood flow. and heucc the intensity of
oxygen transport to the tismes, is relat('d more clof'01~' to a lower power
of body weight than unity.
The biologir'al (~xplanatjou of the rdation of body size aud ml'tabolism
lIlay he (,xprpssed as follows: In natural scl(,etiou those animals are
the fittest in which thr caloric requirements are in hamlOny with the

35.
Jan.) 1032J KTcibN: Bod!! Si,e ani! }{pta/Jnlism
1 _
349
hemodynamic possibilities of oxygen transport. This harmony seems
to be established when the logarithm of thc metabolism is proportionnl
to the logarithm of body weight.
~0 theoretical evidence has been found to indicate that the metabo-
lism of animals should be related exactly to the surface area of their skin.
For the sake of precision, the metabolism of animals should not be
~iH'n in terms of body surface, because this term is not well defined.
. simple equation probably applicable to all homoiotherrns and
characterizing the metabolism by three coefficients ("ex and "pecies,
age, specific stature) gives a prediction of the metabolism of man on
the basis of the % or the %. power of body weight with practically the
snme degree of accuracy as by the empirical regression equation of Harris
amI Reneclict. This result strengthens the hypothesis that the intra-
specific relation of body size and metabolism follows the same logarithmic
rule as has been found by interspecific comparison.
It is suggested that the heat production of all warm-bloodpd animals
should be exprpssed in terms of the same power of the body weight and
that for the sake of economy in research the question of the best-fitting
exponent (% to ~4) should be studied in order to find a unit for rneasure-
nwnt which might be adopted internationally.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For assistance ill preparing the manuscript, I am indebted to Dr.
G. H. Hart, Dr. T. 1. Storer, and Miss Hplcne Kirby.